Evolution

Kent_Mackem said:
Only the mutation in DNA During replication is random. Most mutations either make no difference as to whether that animal survives long enough to mate or they actively make it less likely to happen.

However what happens next is certainly not random. if the random mutation of a gene means a change in the organism that affords it an advantage over its peers and siblings then this can mean it is more likely to survive loenough to mate (e.g. sharper teeth, a longer neck, better eyesight etc).

Or the change could make the organism a more attractive mate, meaning it’s more likely to get laid due to sexual selection (e.g. more colourful plumage, a slightly different pheromone molecule, a more attractive square jaw line etc). Again that mechanism isn’t random.

Over time those organisms more likely to mate for the reasons above will tend to pass on their genes at a greater rate than their competition.virwed retrospectively we can see why animals changed and developed into new species. However given different random mutations, changing environments and climates we’d never get exactly the same story unfolds nag if we played it all again.

it’s a fairly simple idea, but Darwin’s (and Wallace’s) genius was to spot it, prove it and communicate it, but there are still millions of people who prefer the simpler, lazier magic wand explanation of “Yrah, god did it all” followed by an Essex Sniff.
Click to expand...

I love the simplicity of it.
 


Kent_Mackem said:
That is the ironic thing... the happy clappers think it is too complicated so prefer their (MORE complicated) version.

explanation A has lots of repeatable evidence
explanation B has no evidence At all
I don’t understand explanation A
Therefore explanation B is correct
Click to expand...
This. I also think SOME of those people that fall into the category "I don’t understand explanation A" simply just can't get their heads around the time the process takes rather than it being done by some God. They can't seem to grasp that we're talking billions of years, Human Beings that are anatomically the same of us have only been around 200,000 years at the most, and farming (which created civilisations) only 12,000 years at most.
 
Kent_Mackem said:
Only the mutation in DNA during replication is random. Most mutations either make no difference as to whether that animal survives long enough to mate or they actively make it less likely to happen.

However what happens next is certainly not random. if the random mutation of a gene means a change in the organism that affords it an advantage over its peers and siblings then this can mean it is more likely to survive loenough to mate (e.g. sharper teeth, a longer neck, better eyesight etc).

Or the change could make the organism a more attractive mate, meaning it’s more likely to get laid due to sexual selection (e.g. more colourful plumage, a slightly different pheromone molecule, a more attractive square jaw line etc). Again that mechanism isn’t random.

Over time those organisms more likely to mate for the reasons above will tend to pass on their genes at a greater rate than their competition. viewed retrospectively we can see why animals changed and developed into new species. However given different random mutations, changing environments and climates we’d never get exactly the same story unfolds and if we played it all again.

It’s a fairly simple idea, but Darwin’s (and Wallace’s) genius was to spot it, prove it and communicate it, but there are still millions of people who prefer the simpler, lazier magic wand explanation of “Yeah, god did it all” followed by an Essex Sniff.
Click to expand...

Correct.

Still got a religion dig in :lol:
Temp0101 said:
This. I also think SOME of those people that fall into the category "I don’t understand explanation A" simply just can't get their heads around the time the process takes rather than it being done by some God. They can't seem to grasp that we're talking billions of years, Human Beings that are anatomically the same of us have only been around 200,000 years at the most, and farming (which created civilisations) only 12,000 years at most.
Click to expand...

Look at the Duck-billed Platypus. Evolution staring you in the face :lol:

I think you'll struggle to convince using your timescales mind, as apparently the Earth is only 6,000 years old.
 
Last edited:
dangermows said:
Correct.

Still got a religion dig in :lol:


Look at the Duck-billed Platypus. Evolution staring you in the face :lol:

I think you'll struggle to convince using your timescales mind, as apparently the Earth is only 6,000 years old.
Click to expand...
What about the ordinary platypus, the one without a gob that looks like a duck?
 
Kent_Mackem said:
It's thought that one of the factors that encouraged our ape-like ancestors to climb down from trees and walk on all our legs was the climate change around The Great Rift Valley long after the dinosaurs had nashed. There were probably several advantages to walking on two legs - seeing predators from a distance in the grasslands, being able to carry stuff and being able to walk while texting.

Once the random changes in genes allowed a drift towards opposable thumbs, allowing us to grip and make tools then the pace quickened. While digging my veggie patch earlier this year I found a flint tool. It wasn't as sleek as a Bronze Age harpooned arrow head, or as polished as an earlier large hand axe. This tool is proper old. It is a flint flake that fits perfectly into the thumb and forefinger of right hand and it has a serated cutting edge. It is an ancient tool, maybe 10,000 years old, that was last held by a caveman cutting open something like a deer for his dinner. People call me boring but for me the finding, researching and holding it in April beat watching rubbish on TV any day of the week.

Stone tools and fire allowed us to hunt for and cook meat. These were the key factors that accelerated the path to where we are now. Speech was another - far easlier to hunt and to cooperate in social groups with more advanced communication. The last huge one was writing. From the moment we invented writing, all of the knowledge gained during a lifetime was not lost as it could be captured in a way better than just talking/singing around the camp fire. This has progressed through books, libraries and then exponentially into the current digital age. When I was young there was often never a hope of having a question answered within seconds. It may have taken days to find the answer if ever, inlcuding (if the questionner had sufficient patience) a trip on the bus to the library or writing to somebody using an envelope and a stamp (What are they?). Now an incredible amount of information both historical and real-time is literally at our fingertips wherever we may be. Compared to just 30 years ago, back when I was still alive, that is absolutely staggering.

There is nothing to suggest that any of the big leaps would definitely not have happened had we started the journey at the same time of the dinosaurs. Although they were around for ages themselves, the timespan of the dinosaurs is greater than the time between them and us. Small mammals thrived once the dinosaurs had died out (as did their descendants the birds) and we eventually evolved from those small, probably nocturnal, mammals.

However, the natural course of evolution is initiated by random DNA mutations. If history was repeated today's resultant most intelligent and dominant species would almost certainly have been very different. Just as its religious accounts, gods and rules (if religion existed) would have been. The laws of Science would still be the same though. Just think.... it might have been a caring species that did not have an inbuilt passion of destroying itself and other species. We might get on together instead of fighting wars. We might allow other animals to live and, once we understood the harm we are doing to the planet, have instead ensured we no longer did such harm. Perhaps there would have been no religion, no wars, no torture, no rape, no theft, no crime, no word "celebrity".

Instead we're mostly the vermin of The Earth. In terms of evolutionary success insects are miles ahead of us.
Click to expand...

Surely all life forms that continue to survive and pass on their genes are equally successful? That's all that matters from an evolutionary perspective.
 
Nero the dog said:
Why would humans have had any more difficulty outsmarting dinosaurs than we have had with lions and other apex predator.
A human would be a poor waste of time for something like a T-Rex to actively hunt, a lot of effort for not much return. A bit like us trying to catch rabbits by running after them. Of course if stupid humans got caught in the open we would be easy pickings for any predator.
Click to expand...

Blue whales eat Krill. The social evolutionary impact of this is that humans are territorial.
 
Behind Enemy Lines said:
Surely all life forms that continue to survive and pass on their genes are equally successful? That's all that matters from an evolutionary perspective.
Click to expand...
An organism with an advantage over its siblings and peers due to a genetic mutation is more likely to live long enough to reproduce its DNA and/or be more attractive to a mate and therefore more likely to snaffle. The mutated gene is inherited so over time the new advantageous gene will become more prevalent in the species and more and more, then eventually all, the surviving organisms years and years on will have that advantage. The species will then have evolved its long neck to reach the best leaves, or its venom in the egg-depositor now sting to defend its hive, or its ability to breath oxygen in the air rather than in water.

Once the species can no longer reproduce with its unchanged peers, often due to geographical splits (e.g. drifting land masses creating islands like Australia) then it is eventually classed as a new species.
 
Temp0101 said:
This. I also think SOME of those people that fall into the category "I don’t understand explanation A" simply just can't get their heads around the time the process takes rather than it being done by some God. They can't seem to grasp that we're talking billions of years, Human Beings that are anatomically the same of us have only been around 200,000 years at the most, and farming (which created civilisations) only 12,000 years at most.
Click to expand...

I've heard we can't have evolved from apes as apes are still around.
 
dangermows said:
I've heard we can't have evolved from apes as apes are still around.
Click to expand...
Yes, I’ve heard that one too.
When it is pointed out to them they usually give an Elephant Man type “I am not an animal.... I am a human being” response.

“That’s all well and good but you are an ape.”
 
Horatio Pugwash said:
I doubt it, dinosaurs were around in one form or another for something like 165million years. We have been around for less than a quarter of a million and we've fucked things up. I can't see the human race lasting another quarter 😕
Click to expand...
One of favourites when you’re in that existential/philosophical mood which usually involves whisky - the future of our species/planet etc. If I could have one wish it’d be to come back every couple of thousand years or so just to see how we’re getting on. In another quarter million we could have colonised some of the solar system, literally. Look what we have achieved in just the last 250 years, never mind 250,000! Or we’d have nuked ourselves which is more likely, eh?
 
Temp0101 said:
One of favourites when you’re in that existential/philosophical mood which usually involves whisky - the future of our species/planet etc. If I could have one wish it’d be to come back every couple of thousand years or so just to see how we’re getting on. In another quarter million we could have colonised some of the solar system, literally. Look what we have achieved in just the last 250 years, never mind 250,000! Or we’d have nuked ourselves which is more likely, eh?
Click to expand...
I doubt there will be many humans left in 250 years. Certainly nothing like the numbers we have now.
 

Back
Top